3 ms·

Sounds more like we're blaming the manufacturer for concealing the fact that pilots needed to be specifically (re-)trained for this plane if they were to have a

by jfk13 7y ago

Sounds more like we're blaming the manufacturer for concealing the fact that pilots needed to be specifically (re-)trained for this plane if they were to have a chance of handling it successfully.

blunte 7y ago
Exactly. But such training should not be necessary because this problem was created by Boeing. Pilots really should have extensive emergency training, but that doesn't mean it's ok for the manufacturer to Add a new failure case to a previously fine aircraft.
- olliej 7y ago
  [edit: leaving this here because I wrote so much :D I totally misread/interpreted the comment I was replying to, and am entirely in agreement :D ] In this case the "fix" is called the "roller coaster", but Boeing has removed the documentation regarding this from the manuals - specifically the Pilots could have 100% perfect recall of the entire 737-MAX documentation and it wouldn't have helped. This is 100% Boeing's responsibility: * They designed a system that overrode pilot control so that they could avoid a requirement to retrain pilots. MCAS existed specifically to maintain the perception of identical flight behaviour entirely to avoid the need for recertification and training. That is the only reason MCAS existed. * They had minimal (no?) documentation indicating it existed * They made a warning system to report that the system was faulty - literally they shipped a broken safety system: the warning was intended to be freely available, but it was incorrectly tied to a costly system, so even though it was meant to be a standard feature, it was not present. * The recommended recovery technique from their documentation was not physically possible, even when you knew exactly what you were meant to do. * The only technique to recover - the roller coaster - had been deliberately removed from the training and flight manuals. The pilots who managed to recover were only able to recover because they knew of the "solution" from old manuals that were published online after both crashes had occurred, by some non-Boeing website. Even then the pilots in the article said that they didn't believe it would be possible to recover once you got below 5000 feet. Now, exactly how was this in any way the pilot's fault? They were fully trained, they had clearly read the manuals provided by Boeing (they knew they were mean to be using the manual wheel thing), the warning system was non-functional due to a construction/software error in Boeing's control software, etc.
  - secabeen 7y ago
    Do we know how much the speed was a factor? Would slowing down have reduced the forces to make cranking the manual trip possible?
    - olliej 7y ago
      No, the only way to recover as far as I can tell is to do the roller coaster thing. From what I can make out MCAS points the plane at the ground, so it accelerates - I don’t know if it also increases thrust but if it’s meant to be anti-stall maybe it does? The only way to reduce load once you’re at those speeds with a faulty plane (as far as I can understand it) is to keep pointing to the ground and move the trim control a bit, pull up again (which reintroduces the load) to gain altitude, then point down again and repeat until you’ve defeated the unsafe aircraft.

by jfk13 7y ago

Sounds more like we're blaming the manufacturer for concealing the fact that pilots needed to be specifically (re-)trained for this plane if they were to have a chance of handling it successfully.

blunte 7y ago

Exactly. But such training should not be necessary because this problem was created by Boeing. Pilots really should have extensive emergency training, but that doesn't mean it's ok for the manufacturer to Add a new failure case to a previously fine aircraft.

olliej 7y ago
[edit: leaving this here because I wrote so much :D I totally misread/interpreted the comment I was replying to, and am entirely in agreement :D ] In this case the "fix" is called the "roller coaster", but Boeing has removed the documentation regarding this from the manuals - specifically the Pilots could have 100% perfect recall of the entire 737-MAX documentation and it wouldn't have helped. This is 100% Boeing's responsibility: * They designed a system that overrode pilot control so that they could avoid a requirement to retrain pilots. MCAS existed specifically to maintain the perception of identical flight behaviour entirely to avoid the need for recertification and training. That is the only reason MCAS existed. * They had minimal (no?) documentation indicating it existed * They made a warning system to report that the system was faulty - literally they shipped a broken safety system: the warning was intended to be freely available, but it was incorrectly tied to a costly system, so even though it was meant to be a standard feature, it was not present. * The recommended recovery technique from their documentation was not physically possible, even when you knew exactly what you were meant to do. * The only technique to recover - the roller coaster - had been deliberately removed from the training and flight manuals. The pilots who managed to recover were only able to recover because they knew of the "solution" from old manuals that were published online after both crashes had occurred, by some non-Boeing website. Even then the pilots in the article said that they didn't believe it would be possible to recover once you got below 5000 feet. Now, exactly how was this in any way the pilot's fault? They were fully trained, they had clearly read the manuals provided by Boeing (they knew they were mean to be using the manual wheel thing), the warning system was non-functional due to a construction/software error in Boeing's control software, etc.
- secabeen 7y ago
  Do we know how much the speed was a factor? Would slowing down have reduced the forces to make cranking the manual trip possible?
  - olliej 7y ago
    No, the only way to recover as far as I can tell is to do the roller coaster thing. From what I can make out MCAS points the plane at the ground, so it accelerates - I don’t know if it also increases thrust but if it’s meant to be anti-stall maybe it does? The only way to reduce load once you’re at those speeds with a faulty plane (as far as I can understand it) is to keep pointing to the ground and move the trim control a bit, pull up again (which reintroduces the load) to gain altitude, then point down again and repeat until you’ve defeated the unsafe aircraft.